![]() ![]() But some of us still believe stick to it. IAC, watch the film and make your own decision. Is is 100% accurate? I NEVER saw a 'historical' film that got the historical facts 100% right. So maybe the critics panned the film more out of prudence than displeasure. These exalted critics must have remembered what happens when a certain religion is mentioned in an unfavorable light (Charlie Hebdo, anyone?). Well, consider it from their perspective. It should be noted that there is more than one Battle of Vienna. The Siege of Vienna by John Stoye is a thorough and well-written description of one of the critical moments of European history - the 1683 attack by the Ottoman. : Siege Of Vienna 1683 Nforces Commanded By Charles V Duke Of Lorraine And John Iii Sobieski King Of Poland Drive Back The Turkish Armies. Haters of this film also wasted no time pointing out that critics panned the film (and we know that critics are infallible). This is a fairly concise summary of centuries of conflict culminating in this battle. Yeah, those historical coincidences are a (bleep). May I politely remind our distinguished critic that there were no microphones in those days? It also looks like that the mention of the date of the event - Sept 11 - went down some tender throats like battery acid. And in another he was trying to make himself heard over the thunder of battle. Murray Abraham spends the whole film screaming. It's only for Catholics (well, finally something for Catholics). It's racist (but you expected that would pop up, didn't you). : Siege Of Vienna 1683 Nthe Siege Of Vienna Austria By The Ottoman Turks 1683 Wood Engraving Austrian 19Th Century Poster Print by (18 x 24). The history is all wrong (yeah, everybody is a history professor). It is more than obvious that those who hated it did so for political reasons. Well, I see that posters either loved this film, or hated it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |